Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies When High Court Can Grant Relief After Apex Court Cancels It

The Supreme Court has held that while there is no absolute bar on a high court granting bail to an accused whose bail was earlier cancelled by the apex court, such relief can be granted only if there are fresh grounds or a change in circumstances that were not considered at the time of cancellation.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh said the conduct of the accused after the cancellation of bail is also a crucial factor in deciding whether bail should be granted again.

Court further emphasised that bail orders must be reasoned.

"Bail orders must reveal the factors that weighed with the court for granting relief, and that a mere recitation of 'the facts and circumstances of the case' without more does not constitute a reasoned order," the Bench said.

Also Read| 'Crime Can’t Be Bought Off': Supreme Court Slams ‘Compensation-for-Sentence’ Trend

The observations came while allowing an appeal against an Allahabad High Court order dated September 22, 2025, which had granted bail to accused Jeeshan. Holding that the high court had committed a manifest error of law, the Supreme Court set aside the bail order and directed the accused to surrender forthwith.

Background of the case

According to the prosecution, Jeeshan allegedly brandished a country-made pistol and opened fire at the complainant's family members to force them to withdraw a murder case.

His anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the high court. After his arrest, he sought regular bail, which was granted by a single judge of the high Ccourt on the ground that only a "vague and general role" had been attributed to him and that there was no substantive evidence against him.

The complainant challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

Why did the Supreme Court interfere with the high court's bail order?

The apex court noted that by a speaking order dated January 27, 2025, it had set aside the earlier bail order after finding that the high court had wrongly described the accused's role as "vague and general" and had failed to consider the trial court's findings while rejecting bail. The Supreme Court had also directed the accused to surrender immediately.

Also Read| 'Nature of Hurt Immaterial For Conviction Under S.307 IPC,' SC Upholds Conviction Of Army Personnel For Firing On Colleagues

Instead of complying with the direction, the accused absconded. Coercive proceedings had to be initiated before he finally surrendered on March 10, 2025, nearly 42 days after the Supreme Court's order.

Thereafter, his second regular bail application was rejected by the trial court, which found that there was neither any change in circumstances nor any fresh ground warranting bail. The trial court also expressed concern that the accused could abscond again or tamper with evidence.

The accused then approached the high court once more, which granted him bail. Challenging that order, the complainant again approached the Supreme Court.

The Bench held that the impugned order ignored settled principles governing the grant of bail after an earlier cancellation by the Supreme Court. It also overlooked several material circumstances, including the accused's conduct after the cancellation of bail.

Rejecting the contention that the accused had delayed surrendering because a review petition was pending before the Supreme Court, the Bench said:

"The filing of a review petition does not operate as an automatic stay upon the original order. This court by order dated 27.01.2025 directed immediate surrender, and the Respondent No. 2 was bound to comply with the direction forthwith," court held. 

Does the absence of firearm injuries rule out an offence under Section 307 IPC?

The Bench also rejected the argument that the CCTV footage did not show the accused firing at the victims, observing that such issues are matters for trial and cannot be decisive at the stage of deciding bail.

It further clarified that the absence of firearm injuries does not negate the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307, IPC [corresponding to Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)].

Also Read| Minor injuries not sufficient not to frame charges under S 307 IPC: SC

According to the Court, the provision is attracted if an act is committed with the intention or knowledge that it is likely to cause death.

"If an accused fires a weapon at victim with the intent to kill and or the knowledge that it can kill, but the victims escape by chance, the commission of the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out," the Bench said.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the present incident could not be viewed in isolation.

"This court cannot be oblivious to the broader context in which the present crime was committed. As it appears that the present offence was not an isolated incident but is said to be a premeditated attempt to terrorise the appellant and his family members who are eyewitnesses and victims in the murder case of the appellant's brother and to coerce them into withdrawing or compromising in the said murder case against their will," Court said.

The Bench held that the high court had failed to consider the Supreme Court's earlier order cancelling bail, the accused's conduct in absconding and allegedly threatening witnesses after cancellation of bail, the CCTV evidence, the recovery of the country-made pistol at his instance, and the trial court's rejection of the second bail application.

"An order that overlooks such crucial and weighty materials on record is perverse and cannot be sustained and is liable to be interfered with," Court said.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the high court's order, cancelled the bail granted to the accused and directed him to surrender forthwith.

Case Title: Mohseen Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh 

Date of Judgment: May 22, 2026